IJTM/IJCEE PAGE TEMPLATEv2This article has now been published:
Veilleux, S., Haskell, N. et D. Béliveau
(2018) «Opportunity recognition by international high technology
start-up and growth
firms», International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small
Business, 22 (1/2): 126-
151.
TECHNOLOGY START-UP AND GROWTH PHOTONICS FIRMS
Sophie Veilleux,
[email protected]
Nancy Haskell,
[email protected]
Donald Béliveau,
[email protected]
Université Laval
Sophie Veilleux is an Assistant Professor of Technology and
International
Entrepreneurship at Laval University(Canada). She holds a PhD in
Management of
Technology from the Université du Québec à Montréal (Québec). Her
research
interests include international entrepreneurship, technology
entrepreneurship,
international strategic alliances, high-tech firms management and
internationalization
process, with a special focus on biotechnology and photonics
industries. She has co-
authored journal articles which appeared in Journal of Business
Strategy,
International Journal of Technoentrepreneurship, International
Journal of Business
and Globalisation, International Journal of Biotechnology. She
teaches the process of
high technology firms’ development, from their creation up to their
international
growth.
Nancy Haskell is an Associate Professor of Marketing Strategy and
International
Marketing at the Faculty of Business Administration, Laval
University in Quebec,
Canada, where she is a member of GREMM (Research Group on
Marketing
Evaluation and Measurement). She has co-authored articles which
appeared in the
Journal of Business Strategy, International Journal of Business and
Globalisation, and
Business Review Cambridge. Her research interests include strategic
market planning
as well as internationalization and planning issues of
entrepreneurs and SMEs. She
teaches strategic market planning and development of global
markets. She obtained a
Ph.D. in marketing (specialization in strategic market planning)
from the University
of Michigan (Ann Arbor).
Donald Béliveau is Full Professor of pricing strategy and
international marketing at
the Faculty of Business Administration, Laval University in Quebec,
Canada, where
he is a member of GREMM (Research Group on Marketing Evaluation
and
Measurement). His research interests include international
development of SMEs and
international pricing issues. He has recently turned his attention
to the biotechnology
and photonics sectors. He obtained a Ph.D. in International
marketing at the
University of California – Los Angeles (U.C.L.A.) and is a
certified accountant and
certified management accountant.
TECHNOLOGY START-UP AND GROWTH PHOTONICS FIRMS
Abstract: For high technology firms that depend on foreign markets
from the outset,
identifying opportunities is a matter not only of business
development but of survival.
This study contributes to the opportunity recognition literature by
exploring the paths
taken by these international entrepreneurs to find opportunities in
foreign markets.
Moreover, it examines the paths of firms at different lifecycle
stages. Based on in-
depth interviews with 5 start-ups and 5 growth firms in Canada
specialized in
photonics, this research delves into both the personal
characteristics of the
entrepreneurial teams and the methods they use to find
international opportunities.
The sources they use as well as the actions undertaken are examined
and compared.
The practical goal is to identify path components which may be
adjusted in start-up
firms to improve the probability of finding and developing fruitful
opportunities.
Keywords: opportunity recognition, international business
development, high-tech
SME, start-up, growth firm, international entrepreneurship,
network, prior
knowledge, previous experience, alertness, activeness,
spin-off
1 Introduction
Since the 1990s, a growing body of research has explored dimensions
of international
entrepreneurship, including the characteristics and motivations of
these entrepreneurs,
the entry modes they use, factors leading to early
internationalisation and its
advantages, the process of internationalisation, and performance
correlates (Jones et
al., 2011; Mainela et al., 2014; Coviello, 2015). Entry into
foreign markets extends
the client base with the objective of increasing sales volume (Paul
and Wooster,
2008). For high technology small and medium enterprises (HTSME)
that produce and
sell products for which domestic demand is limited or non-existent,
an international
orientation is crucial for survival and long-term growth (Fryges,
2009). These firms
are therefore characterized by a business model in which
internationalisation plays a
key role.
Furthermore, high technology firms often possess breakthrough
scientific knowledge
and have or are in the process of developing cutting-edge
technologies based on this
knowledge. Potential applications of this knowledge and technology
in the
marketplace must first be discovered and the technology must be
adapted or created
through research and development (for example, pilot projects to
apply the
technology within a specific industry). In this way, high
technology firms transform
their technology into solutions for industry, government, and/or
consumers.
Moreover, in spite of discovering promising technology, survival of
high-tech firms
must find and exploit their innovation strategy quickly. Failing to
do so may allow
competitors to enter the market (Park, 2005). While rapid strategy
deployment and
revenues and/or financial support are obviously important factors
in their survival,
finding opportunities for concrete applications of technology is at
the heart of initial
success, and continuing to find new opportunities (new markets for
technology
applications or new applications of technology to solve market
problems) is essential
to business survival and growth. Without appropriate opportunities
to allow them to
propose new solutions and to prove the utility of their technology,
these firms have no
way to generate revenues.
Currently, there is a gap in the literature to help understand how
high tech firms
“discover” such international opportunities, especially in a B2B
context, or whether
opportunity research strategies differ for firms in the start-up
phase and those in the
growth phase. Therefore, to contribute to the current discussion in
the opportunity
recognition literature, this research will focus on opportunity
recognition practices of
both start-up firms and growing firms.
The sector of application is high technology firms specialized in
photonics
technologies who are involved in international markets. These
technologies promise
to increase precision and productivity in the industrial and
commercial sectors,
sometimes at lower cost compared to older methods. They are also
capable of
generating innovative products for long-awaited solutions. Given
the nature of many
photonics applications, domestic markets typically present limited
demand, leading
start-up photonics firms to embrace foreign markets from the
outset. The photonics
sector may in this sense be considered similar to other
high-technology industries
where continual opportunity recognition is imperative for success
and growth, and
global markets are essential.
An exploratory multiple-case study of 5 start-ups and 5
growth-stage firms from
Canada, specialised in photonics, has therefore been conducted. For
a start-up,
finding the first opportunity may or may not lead to market
success; furthermore,
even initial market success may not necessarily lead to market
expansion. Since
opportunity recognition represents the crucial foundation for
market success, it makes
sense to examine the sources and practices of these firms.
The approach of this research and its major contribution to the
opportunity
recognition literature is the investigation of the similarities and
differences in the
opportunity search and recognition paths employed by both start-up
and growth firms
(i.e., those that have succeeded in growing and expanding their
markets) in high
technology international entrepreneurs. The practical goal is to
identify path
components which may be adjusted in start-up firms to improve the
probability of
their future success.
The following sections will present a review of the literature
dealing with
international entrepreneurship, and the concepts of opportunity and
opportunity
recognition. The pertinent constructs are used to propose a model
of opportunity
recognition (Figure 1). The specificities of internationalized high
tech SMEs are also
presented to situate opportunity recognition within the context of
their reality. After
presentation of the methodology and the findings, the discussion
summarizes the
patterns observed. Conclusions, limits to the generalisation of
results, future research
directions, and managerial implications are given.
2 Literature review in international entrepreneurship
The following sections aim to conceptually identify elements of
opportunity search
and recognition in internationalised high-technology SMEs according
to their
lifecycle stage. These elements are then summarised in a model of
opportunity
recognition (Figure 1)
2.1 Opportunity
Opportunity is central to the entrepreneurship definition as
proposed by Shane and
Venkataraman (2000: 218): «The field of entrepreneurship is defined
as the scholarly
examination of how, by whom, and with what effects opportunities to
create future
goods and services are discovered, evaluated and exploited.»
Internationalisation is
also opportunity driven (Zahra et al., 2005). It is not surprising,
therefore, to see
opportunity dimensions in the definition of international
entrepreneurship: the
“discovery, enactment, evaluation, and exploitation of
opportunities - across national
borders - to create future goods and services” (Oviatt and
McDougall, 2005: 540).
Entrepreneurs must then recognise opportunities and act on them by
deploying the
resources they control to establish viable businesses (Di Gregorio
et al., 2008).
Ellis (2011: 101) extends the notion of international opportunity
beyond the creation
of future goods and services by including the opportunity to serve
new foreign
customers in new markets: “…the chance to conduct exchange with new
partners in
new foreign markets, including foreign intermediaries or foreign
customers”.
Opportunities are first recognised, or discovered, their
feasibility is evaluated, and
then they are exploited (Ardichvili et al., 2003). For the purpose
of this article, only
the recognition of opportunities will be analysed for a sample of
firms for which
international opportunities are a natural part of their
existence.
2.2 Opportunity recognition
Opportunity recognition relies on prior knowledge, alertness, and
activeness, as well
as entrepreneurs’ existing ties, which may be either social or
business related
(Kontinen and Ojala, 2011). Prior knowledge, contributing to
industry- and market-
specific opportunity recognition, refers to ways to serve markets
and awareness of
customers’ problems (Shane, 2000; Ozgen and Baron, 2007). Although
knowledge
may be more general, as coming from media and education,
experience-based
knowledge is emphasized since successful high-tech firms usually
have a founding
team aware of the importance of an international presence. The
complementarity of
their team members in terms of experience leads to the firm’s high
growth, notably in
expanding markets (Kaczmarek and Ruigrok, 2013). Their knowledge
and their
vision are key to recognition of international opportunities.
Entrepreneurs’ alertness
comes from their high intelligence, creativity, and optimism
(Ellis, 2011).
Furthermore, Kontinen and Ojala (2011) suggest that the active role
of entrepreneurs
in opportunity seeking through personal contacts is more beneficial
than the
identification from public information.
2.3 Opportunity Recognition Methods
Ellis (2011) has categorised recognition methods either as
tie-based (through social or
business networks) or non tie-based. Tie-based sources such as
mentors and informal
industry ties are more beneficial than family and friends, who
normally lack industry-
specific knowledge. Prasantham (2006) noted that foreign network
relationships
provide opportunities, information, and advice. A large proportion
of firms use their
network for knowledge about international markets to improve their
international
competitiveness and performance. (Johanson and Vahlne, 2003; Kenny
and Fahy,
2006; Loane and Bell, 2006). Moreover, information abundancy
favours
entrepreneurs’ ability to recognise opportunity, which in turn
contributes to increase
the entrepreneur’s ties (Kontinen and Ojala, 2011). However,
relying only upon
networks may also be accompanied by constraints. In his study,
Ellis (2011) found
that only 40% of opportunities identified by his sample firms were
the result of ties.
Furthermore, tie-based opportunities were found to be constrained
in terms of
geographic, psychic and linguistic distance, suggesting that
networks are bounded by
communication horizons. There is therefore a need to balance the
benefits from ties
and overcome their constraints (Hohenthal et al., 2003) and, in the
case of
internationalisation, to search for a mix of opportunities
presented by the network as
well as those resulting from serendipity (Spence, 2003). These
authors include in
opportunity recognition the initial step of opportunity search.
However, the use of
networks (tie-based) , accompanied by opportunity seeking (non
tie-based methods),
may provide the better fit to reduce risks (Mort and Weerawardena,
2006).
Non-tie based methods may compensate for limited networks as a
major source of
international opportunities for SMEs (Kontinen and Ojala, 2011).
They include
structured search methods through formal sources and data
collection, fair-based
methods (exhibitions, conventions, trade missions), and advertising
based methods
such as corporate websites (Ellis, 2011). Coviello (2006)
emphasizes that professional
forums and trade exhibitions are not only sources of information
but provide high
potential for developing network ties, while Spence and Crick
(2006) suggest that
events play a more important role than suggested in the
literature.
Once founders recognise opportunities, they must also be
sufficiently knowledgeable
and motivated to exploit them (McMullen and Shepherd, 2006). The
repetition of this
opportunity cycle sums up in entrepreneurial learning (Chandra et
al., 2012).
Entrepreneurs improve their ability to identify and develop better
and more diverse
opportunities over time. Failures also contribute to learning about
opportunity space,
prior relationships, and prior accumulation of resources. Thus,
firms seize smaller
opportunities at their initial stage, and then shift to larger ones
as their capabilities,
resources, networks, and international entrepreneurship
intentionality increases. Their
market commitment follows their market learning. As experience
increases, search
for opportunities and their evaluation are formalised (Varis et
al., 2005). It follows
that as the internationalisation process becomes systematic with
formal planning,
including long-term objectives, the firm’s performance improves in
terms of market
shares, number of markets, and developed competencies (Yip et al.,
2000). At this
point, networks must be managed accordingly with firm’s products,
resources, and
requirements (Ruokonen et al., 2006). Firms must strike a balance
between strategy-
making and responding opportunistically to new possibilities that
emerge through
these relationships (Prashantham and Berry, 2004). Based on the
discussion above,
different stages of growth may be expected to lead to more
formalized behaviour
related to the activities which generate opportunities as the firm
advances from start-
up to growth.
High tech SMEs generally focus on niche-oriented markets;
international presence is
therefore essential to register sufficient sales to cover R&D
investment before the
product becomes obsolete (McDougall and Oviatt, 1996; Lindqvist,
1997; Preece et
al., 1998; McNaughton, 2003; Nummela, 2004). Moreover, high tech
SMEs are
particularly represented in international entrepreneurship because
of their intensive
growth and their simultaneous operations in a wide number of
countries (Kuivalainen
et al., 2004). It is therefore not surprising that most studies in
international
entrepreneurship observe high technology SMEs (Jones et al., 2011).
Even though
international new ventures are not all exclusively in high tech
industries, their
knowledge intensity increases their propensity to internationalise
(Harveston et al.,
2001). Furthermore, those that register high performance have a
high percentage of
international sales (Feeser and Willard, 1990). The earlier firms
go to foreign
countries, the better their knowledge intensity, and the faster
they deploy
internationally (Autio et al., 2000). Furthermore, many modern high
tech SMEs
exploit knowledge-based innovations. These firms are typically
“temperamental,
capricious, and hard to manage” and are subject to special
challenges due to long lead
times, casualty rate, and unpredictability (Drucker 1985).
Furthermore, in an industrial context, high tech SMEs are not
alone; rather, they are
part of an ecosystem, or network, of social and industrial
relations including, for
example, clients, providers, competitors, family, and friends.
These relations are
beneficial resources for obtaining information and overcoming
barriers to export
(Ibeh and Kasem, 2011), to dealing with a lack of resources, and to
increasing a
firm’s credibility, its internationalization, and its marketing
capabilities (Mort and
Weerawardena, 2006). According to Fernhaber and Li (2010),
international
exposition of high tech SMEs is initially furnished by informal
networks represented
by the firm’s close environment, then by formal alliances. Trade
shows and seminars,
public relations and word of mouth are also good vectors to
optimize the industrial
firm’s network (Altshuler and Tarnovskaya, 2010).
More formally, high-technology firms often form clusters which
allow them to reach
a critical mass in order to share knowledge as well as attract
potential clients and
partners. The cluster may include a science park where
interrelations between actors
may allow new opportunities to emerge through synergy
(Jimenez-Zarco et al., 2013).
Universities and incubators often play a catalyst and accelerating
role for both the
creation, growth, and survival of high-tech firms (Sa and Lee,
2012). They also offer
great networking possibilities to establish collaborations with
other organisations
internationally (Carayannis and von Zedtwitz, 2005).
Businesses participate in a cluster to take advantage of the
quality of available
resources, reduce the costs of transactions and benefit from the
transfer of knowledge
that fosters the development of new and creative ideas (He and
Fallah, 2011;
Lamprinopoulou and Tregear, 2011). Being part of a cluster provides
access to
common resources, interactions with neighbouring businesses as well
as a sense of
confidence that improves business transactions (Gnyawali and
Srivastava, 2013).
Clusters also stimulate innovation through their competitive
environment. Studies
have shown that businesses that belong to a cluster experience
stronger innovation
development and more rapid growth than independent businesses
(Menzel and
Fornahl, 2010; Boschma and Fornahl, 2011). In high-technology
industries,
innovation clusters are characterized by heightened mobility of
resources, increased
velocity of business development, and an affinity for collaboration
(Engel and del-
Palacio, 2009). Clustering also allows participants’ firms to
reduce legitimating
expenses, to charge premium prices and position itself on the
higher end of a market
and thus facilitate the finding (or “being found” by) customers.
Firms in a cluster also
have more access to a specialized labour force, a scientific
infrastructure, and the
informal network of firms within their cluster (McHardy et al.,
2005). Clustering
favours relationships that facilitate and accelerate innovation and
entrepreneurship
within itself and around the world (Saxenian, 2006; Engel and
del-Palacio, 2009).
New knowledge available in a region and its surrounding areas
induces and facilitates
new firm creation, with the intra-regional effect being stronger,
and even more so in
high-tech industries (Lee et al., 2013). McHardy et al. (2005) have
shown that cluster
externalities have a positive impact on the internationalization
process of firms within
the cluster. In the internationalization process of high tech
firms, the relationship is
stronger when network relationships existed before the inception of
the international
technology alliance, allowing trust-building and behavioural
monitoring (Lew et al.,
2013). In an international context where regions are competing for
resources, regional
industrial identities influence the attraction and retention of
resources (Romanelli and
Khessina, 2005). A cluster’s reputation has a positive impact on
its stakeholders: it
unites them around a unique identity to achieve a common goal; it
facilitates their
internationalization; it demonstrates a social responsibility
effort; it helps attract
human resources, new members, and capital investments (Lundequist
and Power,
2002; Spence and Essoussi, 2010; Andersson et al., 2012). Such
capital investments
in the commercialization of new technologies could also depend on
the investment
cycle and the availability of capital in the venture industry
(Nanda and Rhodes-
Kropfa, 2013).
In brief, membership in a cluster favours opportunity recognition
and exploitation
because of the network they offer to firms, both locally and
internationally, as well as
the constant interaction and collaboration between members (Arikan,
2009; Manning
et al., 2010; Alberti et al., 2011; Felzensztein et al.,
2012).
(Figure 1 about here)
related to opportunity recognition, discussed above. Previous
research on high-
technology SMEs active in B2B markets suggests that this general
model may be
applied to their specific industrial contexts. Figure 1 suggests
that the characteristics
of founding entrepreneurs of high technology firms that led them
into the
entrepreneurial endeavour (prior knowledge, alertness, activeness)
may continue to
assist them in recognising, or identifying, market opportunities
for the firm. In
addition, opportunity search may lead to opportunity recognition.
The model suggests
two sources of opportunities: tie-based methods (business and
social networks) and
non tie-based methods (concrete search on the part of the firm or
serendipity). The
methodology below aims to shed light on the applicability of this
model in the
specific domain of high tech SMEs specialized in photonics. Our
general research
question can be divided into four sub-questions.
For internationalized HTSME
1. Do certain characteristics of the entrepreneurial team (prior
knowledge,
alertness, activeness) influence opportunity recognition?
2. Do tie-based sources of opportunities (social networks and
business networks)
influence opportunity recognition?
3. Do non tie-based sources of opportunities influence opportunity
recognition?
4. Are start-up firms different from growth firms in their
characteristics or their
practices related to opportunity recognition?
The methodology below was designed to respond to these
questions.
3. Case study methodology
This study aims to deepen our understanding of how high tech SMEs
recognize
international commercial opportunities. Such a «how» question can
best be answered
by qualitative research (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2003; Zou and
Ghauri, 2010).
Coherent with the recommendation of Rialp et al. (2005) in their
thorough review of
research on born globals, the present research is based on a case
study approach.
Furthermore, Eisenhardt (1989) recommends the use of multiple case
studies, from
four to ten, for analysis of a process to ensure sufficient data
without creating
overload during analysis. Multiple case studies permit the
development of richer
insights and a more in-depth understanding (Yin, 2003). We
therefore use multiple
case analysis and present below a description of the research
method pursued to
validate the theoretical framework in Figure 1. Since national
culture and the
particular technological domain could influence firms’ behaviours
(Oviatt and
McDougall, 1997; Knight and Cavusgil, 2004; Manolova and Manev,
2004), we
focus on a unique country, cluster, and a unique technological
domain. Data
collection and analysis for each case followed the same protocol.
In this research, the
unit of analysis is the internationalized high-tech SME which is in
line with our
research questions.
3.1 Research settings
The context chosen for this study is the photonics industry,
because it deals with
applications of fundamental scientific advances, which can be a
major factor for
socio-economic development. In a broad sense, the definition of
photonics relates to
the generation, control, detection and processing of light for the
purposes of
transmitting information and data (Frietsch and Grupp, 2006).
Optical technology is a
so-called “enabling” technology that serves as input for other
technical applications
and products. Its use has become popular with the advent of lasers,
fibre optics,
LEDs, and optoelectronics, among others. Photonics is an important,
strategic
industry with applications in many high-technology products and
markets (Hendry et
al., 2000). It is characterized by large numbers of high-technology
SMEs
concentrated in regional clusters spread around universities and
research centres
(Pereira and Plonski, 2009) and engaged in symbiotic relationships
with multinational
firms. The characteristics of the industry favour strong
international relationships
(Hendry et al., 2000). Reputation is a very important competitive
dimension in
photonics-related industries (McHardy et al., 2005).
The dependence of these firms on opportunity recognition and the
importance of
photonics to industrial productivity and growth make it an ideal
candidate for the
study of international entrepreneurship. 38 photonics clusters have
been identified
worldwide (SPIE, 2012). For the present study, both samples were
chosen from the
Quebec City Photonics Cluster (Canada).
The Quebec City Photonics Cluster regroups 35 firms in the
photonics sector
identified from the database of the Quebec Ministry of Finance and
Economy which
may be categorized into North American SCIAN codes 334511, 334512,
339110. The
cluster also includes a scientific park, an incubator, a
University, a national institute,
18 research chairs and groups, 5 research centres, and laboratories
in that field. The
sector employs 3,000 people of which 800 are dedicated to research.
Firms register a
total of 400M$ CAD (approximately $310M USD) in revenues, of which
85% is
generated by exports.
Since the research aims to identify international business
development activities, and
more specifically, opportunity recognition, at different lifecycle
stages, cases were
chosen among independent firms based on their stage of development
(Stake, 1994;
Perren and Ram, 2004): five start-up firms and five growing firms.
A high-tech start-
up was defined as an independent firm manufacturing a product, with
10 or less
employees, registering less than $5 million in annual revenues. A
high-tech growth
firm was identified as an independent firm, manufacturing a
product, having between
11 and 250 employees, registering less than $25 million in annual
revenues. The age
of the firm is reported in the profile of respondents; however, age
was considered
with caution since in high technology firms, the delay between the
foundation date of
the firm and the first sale may be quite long (Drucker, 2015). All
firms were involved
internationally.
Following those criteria, sample firms where chosen from the Quebec
City photonics
cluster using the governmental database, in collaboration with the
regional economic
development agency. Coviello and Jones (2004) support the use of
judgment
sampling when sample criteria are well specified. A non-random
sampling is also
suitable for extending theoretical knowledge according to
Eisenhardt (1989).
3.2 Data collection
To allow triangulation to ensure the validity of the study and to
obtain a more
comprehensive and accurate view of the topic, data were collected
from multiple
sources: secondary information and semi-structured interviews with
the two groups of
entrepreneurs. Moreover, industry reports and industry experts were
consulted to
validate our understanding of industry dynamics. Both data
collection instruments
were submitted to three economic development counsellors
specialized in photonics
to validate the pertinence and the clarity of the questions. They
were then pretested on
a start-up and a growing firm. Their comments were taken into
consideration in the
final version of data collection tools.
First, a descriptive portrait was prepared for each respondent firm
using secondary
data from publicly available sources: company website, government
databases, media
coverage. Information retrieved included: names of the
entrepreneurial team, their
previous experience, foundation year of the firm, spin-off or not,
actual development
stage, number of employees, revenues, clients, and international
presence. This
information was then validated by the key informant at the end of
the semi-structured
interviews.
Second, face-to-face semi structured interviews of 120 minutes were
held with key
decision makers (founders or CEOs) in each of the 10 firms. An
interview guide
structure enabled comparison within and across groups. Questions
were related to the
following topics: the background of the founding team, the creation
of the firm, its
internationalisation process and actual presence, and its learning.
All interviews were
recorded with the respondent’s permission, immediately transcribed
verbatim,
verified by the principal researcher who conducted the interviews,
and coded using
QDA Minor by two independent coders. Inter-coder reliability was
verified by a
coding exercise, occasional differences were discussed, and
modifications were made
to the coding key. Inter-coder reliability is perceived as a useful
measure of the
quality of research (Perreault and Leigh, 1989; Kolbe and Burnett,
1991).
The data were then organized and analysed using a widely-adopted
matrix approach
(Mort and Weerawardena, 2006; Child et al., 2009). Such
categorization enabled
within-group comparisons (start-up or growth) to discover
consistent patterns (Yin,
2003) as well as inter-group comparisons. Inter-group comparisons
were later
performed and compared to the extant literature to identify both
conflicting and
corroborating frameworks. As suggested by Eisenhardt (1989) and
Mort and
Weerawardena (2006), inconsistencies may point to propositions that
could explain
the data and opportunities to uncover deeper meaning.
3.3 Case study description
Figure 2 presents the profile of sample photonics firms, 5
starts-ups and 5 growing
firms, in terms of origin (spin-off or not), founding team’s
previous experience, types
of clients, number of employees, revenues, percent of export sales,
number of
countries for international sales and number of continents
involved. All firms
demonstrate very high export intensity (% of export sales) of 80%
to 100%. All five
start-up firms in the sample sell their products to private firms.
In the growth sample,
only four first sell to private firms. One start-up and one growth
firm sell to public
laboratories as well. The only “distinguishing” characteristics
between the groups at
the time of the study are -- aside from those related to case
selection (for example,
firm were 4 to 8 years old for the start-up group and 11 to 23
years old for the growth
group) -- that growing firms have greater revenues, and sell to a
larger number of
foreign countries (median of 29 compared to 5) on more continents
(median of 4
compared to 3). These differences are to be expected for growing
firms. Firm S2 was
still considered a start-up even though it was 8 years old because
it was founded
while the entrepreneur was still at university; therefore, the
activity was not full time
at inception and the product not completely ready for market until
three years later.
Start-up case 5 was retained in the start-up sample in spite of the
number of
employees being somewhat higher than the other cases in this group;
based on its age
and revenues, the industry expert consulted readily classified this
firm as a start-up.
(Figure 2 about here)
4 Case findings
To add depth to the realities of our respondents, findings are at
times accompanied by
citations from interviews.
4.1 Prior knowledge and experience
Before founding their respective firms, the entrepreneurial teams
in the study had a
wide range of previous experience. Almost all founders had a
scientific degree either
at a master’s or doctoral level. Three firms were created during
(S2) or immediately
after (S4, G3) the founders completed their degrees. One of these
founders did his
studies in another country (S4). Three entrepreneurial teams (S1,
G1, G5) had only
been working as scientists before launching their businesses; only
one of these (G1)
also had experience presenting the technologies developed at his
public laboratory to
organisations in foreign countries.
Two teams (S3, S5) had combined experience in research, in the
industry, and
internationally. Two others (G2, G4) had members who had worked
only in the
industry before starting their firm; one of the team members of
firm G2 had
experience in international sales and marketing.
In addition to the founding team’s knowledge and experience, firms
which were
spinoffs (S1, S3, S5, G1, G5) sometimes benefited from the
incumbent organisation’s
resources and networks.
«When the firm was launched, two-thirds of the products were
already
commercialised by INO (National Optics Institute). There was
already business
being done, and the clients came back. We just had to continue the
business, to
contact the actual clients, to send a press release. So there was
already a flow of
business development.” (S3)
Being alert to opportunities does not necessarily require
structured research, but
rather openness to possibilities that may result in new clients or
new markets for the
firm. An alert entrepreneur observes the firm’s environment with an
inquiring mind,
an optimistic perspective, accompanied by creativity in integrating
new information.
Thus, a growth firm mentions “being informed” as an important
element to interpret
requests from potential clients and spot new potential markets. For
example, being
alert to legislation may play in favour of the new
technology.
In addition, the popularity of industry events and the use of
networks, to be discussed
later, show the importance for entrepreneurs to be informed of
competitive offers and
customer needs.
While some start-up entrepreneurs mention information that most
likely comes from
being alert to what is happening in the industry, locally and
internationally, others do
explicit search for opportunities through events related to product
use:
“There is a Canada-Chili agreement that will really decrease
customs duties;
therefore, that will help us” (S4).
4.3 Activeness
Activeness in using personal contacts for privileged information,
as well as using
public information also characterizes entrepreneurs who actively
provoke meetings
with potential clients. These actions were observed in both
start-up and growth firms.
“I didn’t really need a network of contacts. For the contact, you
pick up the
phone and you call… So you navigate, you go get the person. You
put
someone in sales and you have salespeople who open the doors and
will talk
to people. Emails – today people are swamped, but not too many
telephone
calls. So the idea is to say “Listen, I will be coming through your
city; I’ll stop
to see you.” (G4)
The practices observed among respondent firms lend positive support
to research
question No. 1: Do the characteristics of the entrepreneurial team
(prior knowledge,
alertness, activeness) influence opportunity recognition?
4.4 Tie-based and Non Tie-based Methods
4.4.1 Tie-based Methods
Social networks are not specifically mentioned by study
participants. However,
business networks are sources of opportunities. A start-up firm
used its contact with a
local firm that has opened a market in another country to discuss
the potential market
for their own technology in that country (S1).
Direct referral by important clients, also viewed as part of a
firm’s network, is not
only a chance to obtain new clients; it is also an attempt to gain
credibility in the
perception of those potential clients:
“Everything works by referrals. Having our multinational client
helps us quite
a bit. If you succeed in being a good supplier, people will refer
you. Our
international expansion is due to our multinational client. We
could become a
“must” for all their suppliers. The biggest challenge is
credibility. We must be
reliable to the thousandth of an inch. To have sold and installed a
machine for
the multinational firm is a selling point.” (S2)
Another type of networking is with employees in the potential
client’s organisation or
through distribution partners who will champion the product
internally.
“There are two doors: either the direct entry – find someone in the
agency
who is capable of being your champion, who believes in your product
and is
ready to sell it inside …or the indirect entry by a systems
integrator, who
already has contracts with the agency, who is ready to push.”
(S1)
The older, more experienced growth firms are able to draw upon
their previous
contacts from industry or research experience to further develop
their networks and to
remain informed of activities in the industry worldwide. For
example:
“People who are in companies today are the people who were in
universities
20 years ago…Those people went all over the world, and so I know
people all
over the world who work in fibre optics…we talk, we see each other.
I am
able to know a bit of what is going on the United States; there are
others in
Asia and others in Europe…By this network, we are able to know
what’s
happening.”(G5)
However, this same entrepreneur suggests that due to the
globalisation of the
industry, established networks may be insufficient to remain fully
informed:
Respondents also value networks of foreign representatives (agents,
distributors) to
increase either the efficiency or rapidity of the start of sales
efforts or to build and
maintain relationships with clients in non-English speaking
countries where the
relationship vendor-buyer is essential to successful
business:
“Our sales representatives meet clients. They build the network of
contacts…
when the time comes for him to work with the final customer (in
Asia),
because of the language barrier, he is there. It is a relationship
that he already
has, and it’s difficult (for us) to become closely acquainted with
those people,
especially in Asia.” (G2)
The multinational character of clients, or partners of another
nature, may in itself be a
source of contacts through that organisation’s global
network:
“It is sometimes those networks that dictate the market where we
should go.
Because sometimes, by accident, we find a good prospect in our
network of
contacts.” (G3)
Even contact with a potential client who does not purchase the
product is used to
network with potential new clients in that firm’s network:
“Often a particular client is not interested, but he knows someone
else in his
market that is. Word of mouth works.” (G4)
Going even further, one growth firm collaborates with important
“non clients” to
evaluate their experience with competitors’ products. These
collaborative efforts open
doors that allow the firm to develop its network.
In addition, similar to firm S1, growth firm G4 emphasizes contacts
with employees
in the buyer’s organisation to be informed of the firm’s
needs.
To research question No. 2: “Do tie-based sources of opportunities
(social networks
and business networks) influence opportunity recognition?” results
suggest that it
varies among respondent firms, depending on its stage in the
lifecycle. This will be
presented with results related to research question No. 4 and
discussed more in depth
in the Discussion section.
4.4.2 Non Tie-based Methods
-Formal search methods.
Start-ups appear to rely on non-tie based methods as do growth
firms. Formal
opportunity search is fairly easy for one growth firm:
“There are an enormous number of study reports, so you can identify
pretty
well which firms are working in the area. Then you know who does
what and
which (of them) are potential clients for your products.”
(G5)
Growth firms also confirm formal opportunity search methods using
public
information and particularities of clients’ situations:
“We look for places where there are problems of security, of
attacks, among
others. (The firm sells a security product.) (G1)
Search methods also include the use of indicators that may be
correlated with the
need to purchase the firm’s products:
« We look for national R&D budgets and we start there. But if
we are in a
country that has none they won’t have the budgets to purchase our
product. So
we established a correlation between certain indicators: defence
budgets, other
budgets, and we can see where it’s happening. We see them in the
area that
concerns us: who is participating in conferences, who are the
players?” (G2)
-Fair-based methods (trade shows, exhibitions, trade missions,
conventions).
A particular type of non-tie based opportunity
search/identification is fair-based
methods: trade shows, exhibitions, trade missions, conventions.
These appear to be
popular ways to generate interest and leads, to meet potential
clients, to explain and
show the firm’s technology, to speak to industry groups about the
scientific advances
of the firm, and also to generate sales.
Trade events may be an important source for start-up firms to make
contacts and to
build its network. Some start-up firms are quick to point out the
value of fair-based
methods for opportunity identification and actual business
development. One
participant indicates the importance of impressing organisations
which can
subsequently specify its technology when ordering from
suppliers:
“We go to about 15 trade shows per year. We choose to present at
the trade
fairs where we can find our final clients and the representatives
of the
transportation ministries, so they will order our products from
their suppliers.”
(S3)
Yet another start-up firm explained its initial experience with the
value of trade fairs,
indicating that he was invited to participate in a trade show with
another firm and
found a client who had been searching for such technology for a
long time (S1).
Growth firms appear to be more strategic when it comes to
fair-based methods. They
emphasize the importance of making effective use of events: meeting
people,
targeting and visiting clients, maintaining relationships and
requiring the presence of
its sales representatives at expositions (G1, G3, G5).
In addition, some emphasize the importance of demonstrating the
advantages of their
technology solutions and providing added value to their presence at
trade events:
“Presentations and demonstrations certainly help. We went to
France,
Australia, Germany, Italy, England, and Spain to show the
capabilities of this
technology. It is performance that we show them. We take videos and
we do
PowerPoint presentations that we standardise, but that we change
very often.”
(G1).
Another strategy is acquiring membership in well-known
organisations in the industry
where potential clients are present. As a member of such
organisations, the firm is
automatically informed of the organisation events, allowing them to
give conferences
with the aim of increasing their notoriety (G3).
-Advertising-based methods (including corporate websites).
Advertising in magazines and/or trade shows, apart from the firms’
websites, is used
by only two start-up firms (S4, S5). Firm S4 points out the
effectiveness of its
advertising but admits that its efforts in this sense are
limited.
With the exception of one start-up firm, websites are not well
developed by the start-
up group:
“Our website is more like a business card to present our products”
(S3).
Growth firms, however, appear to more proactively use websites as
a
communications tool, for brand-building activities, and to track
web activity to see
the “reach” of their site.
“We were among the first to develop a website; we coded it by hand
in
HTML. We were really early on the Internet. The website has brought
us a lot
of visibility.” (G4)
“Employees go see a client with the product, take measures, write a
scientific
article that is easy to understand, or more commercial, and we put
it on our
website. We have produced about 10 very specific application notes
so far.
We also use a sort of portal for photonics in which we publish, and
that works
well. Once a month, the coordinator analyses the traffic on the
website to
determine where the activity and the requests come from. We
presently have
requests from Latin America that we never had before.” (G2)
Some growth firms actively cultivate their relationships with
potential buyers and
regularly communicate with them via publications. For instance, one
firm does
systematic distribution of communications to a database of
contacts:
“It’s a lot of “attack”: branding, newsletters and scientific
articles that we
publish. We sometimes publish articles in specialized journals. Our
contacts
are in our database. When we do newsletters, we distribute them --
we
automatically have our network.” (G3).
Growth firms also explicitly aim to build image and credibility
through scientific
publications and presentations of scientific advances:
“We still publish articles and send scientists to present the
results of their
work as well. We are careful about what we publish, so that also
contributes to
build the image that there is expertise in the company. I think
it’s important.
(G5).
Both groups also benefit from client-initiated demand, or
serendipity. However, such
demand may be the result of previous efforts to make known the
technology and its
potential applications (advertising, the firm’s website,
publication of articles,
exhibitions at trade fairs…):
“We have had a lot of demand during the past year through Internet
and
email.”(S5).
“There were people who were looking for this type of
technology…They
requested we go to do a demonstration.” (G1).
No participants mentioned criteria used to evaluate opportunities,
but one firm
highlighted the global nature of opportunities, implying the
importance of each
opportunity that presents itself to the firm.
To research question No. 3 “Do non tie-based sources of
opportunities influence
opportunity recognition?”, our response is “yes”. Firms’ practices
support the use of a
variety of tie-based methods aimed at recognising
opportunities.
Finally, to research question No. 4 “Are start-up firms different
from growth firms in
their characteristics or their practices related to opportunity
recognition?”, our
response is that there are similarities and differences. However,
similarities are often
superficial when practices are analysed for their level of
sophistication. The
Discussion section below delves more deeply into this and provides
a summary of
patterns observed.
5 Discussion
team
Prior knowledge. First, case analysis demonstrates that the
founding teams’ prior
knowledge is not different among start-ups or growth firms.
However, those that had
members with experience in the industry were indeed aware of
customers’ problems
and possessed a network of contacts, one of which had experience at
the international
level (Shane, 2000; Ozgen and Baron, 2007). This appears more
important in the
opportunity recognition process than the complementarity of the
founding team per
se. Furthermore, in addition to the founding team’s previous
experience proposed by
Kontinen and Ojala (2011) and Kaczmarek and Ruigrok (2013), a key
element to the
opportunity recognition process is being a spin-off. The incumbent
organisation
contributes to the new business in terms of ties but sometimes also
in terms of market
knowledge and international presence. Therefore, industry
experience in photonics of
at least one of the founding team members and being a spin-off
facilitate opportunity
recognition.
According to the literature, alertness and activeness are also part
of a founding team’s
entrepreneurial characteristics.
Alertness. Being alert to opportunities for study participants led
to comments
concerning being informed either by the network or public
information. One growth
firm is alert to the global environment to facilitate
interpretation of information and
unsolicited contacts (G1). Two start-up firms are alert to
particular markets (S1) and
potential product-related events (S1, S4). Both types are equally
valuable since they
answer to different needs which would be a complementary
explanation to the
findings of Kontinen and Ojala (2011).
Activeness. One start-up and 4 growth firms demonstrate activeness
by provoking
meetings with potential clients. These actions do appear to be
directly classified by
participants as tie-based and non tie-based methods which relates
to Evers (2011)
market-oriented activities (to be discussed below).
Founding team’s characteristics therefore do appear to continue to
contribute to the
firm’s growth through opportunity recognition, especially when the
firm is a spinoff.
This seems to be amplified by the B2B context of the photonic
technologies sectors.
5.2 Opportunity recognition through tie-based methods
This study uses Ellis (2011) classification of opportunity
recognition methods.
Results trace a portrait of both start-up and growth firms building
and exploiting
business networks for opportunity recognition.
Spin-off firms (either start-up or growth firms) benefit from the
incumbent’s network
and sometimes even sales. No start-up firm mentioned commercial
opportunities
arriving through either existing social or business networks. Two
firms do, however
mention attempts to obtain information from a local contact (S1) or
through potential
referrals from collaboration with an important client (S2). Most of
their network
building is through non tie-based methods.
Meanwhile, some growth firms do rely on past acquaintances or an
existing network
prior to the firm foundation. In addition, they make important
efforts to build their
networks and to stay informed. They recognise the value of a local
representative’s
cultural knowledge and existing network, especially in countries
where vendor-client
relationship building is difficult due to language barriers yet
essential to business
success (G3, G2). They do not hesitate to use local partners to
request referrals or
market information (G3). Growth firm G3 is particularly active in
developing
collaborations, seeking collaborations even with clients who have
purchased
competitors’ technologies. They realize the potential to test and
compare their
technology with competitors’ products in the client’s environment,
admitting that
such collaborations may lead to referrals. Finally, similar to S1,
they acknowledge the
potential of networking with employees of a potential client’s firm
to develop a
supporter inside the client’s firm.
Therefore, although start-up firms are involved in certain
tie-based activities to
identify opportunities, growth firms are more active and somewhat
more rigorous in
their opportunity recognition methods as expected by Varis et al.
(2005). The more
limited financial resources of start-up firms may partially explain
this result. In the
photonics sector, perhaps due to the often complex nature of
products and their
application to client’s operations, start-up firms require only a
few initial clients to
test and validate the application of the technology. Existing
social and business
networks are perhaps too embryonic or too general to be useful to
suggest
opportunities.
Formal search methods, fair-based methods, and advertising are
recognised ways to
find opportunities, to incite interest in a product, or to
communicate with potential
and actual buyers. Ellis (2011) classified them as non tie-based
methods.
Formal search methods. Some start-up firms do mention the use of
formal
opportunity search. They survey events which are related to the use
of their product
or technology (S1, S4) and sometimes are informed about the most
important market
for their technology (S1). In contrast, growth firms appear to
survey more specific
customer need areas: problems with security (G1), technological
catch-up in
emerging markets (G2), or indicators of activity correlated to use
of their technology
(R&D budgets, national policies)(G2).
Fair-based methods. Fair-based methods, however, are popular with
start-ups to
build their networks (S1, S4, S5) as observed by Kontinen and Ojala
(2011) and to
actively influence end buyers who may then recommend their
technology within their
organisation (S3). On the other hand, growth firms appear to use
these events more
strategically. They point to the importance of presenting and
demonstrating the
performance of their technology and the use of videos and take-home
slide
presentations (G1). Growth firm G3 assures that their presentations
provide added
scientific value based on in-house or client-based work.
Advertising based method (including corporate websites. Advertising
and websites
are not methods that are very developed by start-up firms. Only
minimal efforts were
observed. Conversely, growth firms have more well-developed
strategies related to
advertising and to the use of corporate websites. These include
publications (G2, G3,
G5), newsletters sent to the firm’s network (G3), and explicit
efforts toward
branding/image building (G3, G5). Corporate websites are also
exploited (G1, G2,
G4), with one firm publishing very specific application notes on
its website and
measuring web traffic to identify the location of visitors
(G2).
5.4 Serendipity
Both groups also benefit from serendipity in the form of
unsolicited demands and
legislation that opens a market for the firm’s product.
Figure 3 below sums up patterns observed in the characteristics and
the practices of
for start-ups and growth firms related to opportunity
recognition.
(Figure 3 about here)
The patterns in Figure 3 suggest that start-up HTSMEs are indeed
less sophisticated
than growth firms in terms of opportunity recognition as defined in
this study. This
may be due to the very nature of the start-up stage, characterised
by lack of
experience and limited resources, both financial and human. For
example, even
though knowledge of both categories of firms were equivalent prior
to founding,
growth firms have acquired experience and industry, market and
internationalization
knowledge in their first years, contributing to the development of
their ability to
recognize opportunities. However, both groups share the same
international vision.
Limited resources can severely hender the activities of start-ups.
Advertising and the
development and maintenance of a website, active participation in
trade shows,
scientific conferences and industry events require constant
investments of time and
money. In addition, start-up firms are smaller, begun with only a
limited number of
employees. These are typically engineers specialized in the
technology which they
hope to exploit. Their initial efforts are most often focused on
understanding the
technology, discovering its first commercial applications, and/or
working with its first
clients to adapt the technology to the clients’ technology and
particular need,
sometimes by the use of prototypes and pilot studies. The
activities listed above
require the firm to slow or pause its scientific and development
activities, since the
same employees are responsible for both.
It is therefore not surprising that their efforts are minimal in
the beginning and that
they privilege trade events where they can obtain maximum exposure
while testing
the reaction of potential buyers. Trade event participation may
also lead to a
serendipitous encounter, suggesting a new application or
prospective market. The
frequent use and enthusiasm of growth firms for these methods of
identifying
opportunities is an indication that they are worth the investments
made in them.
In addition, it is not a given that entrepreneurs embrace or
understand the importance
of advertising, promotion, and relationship marketing in general
from the beginning
of their commercial adventure as observed by Evers (2011). Growth
firms, with their
superior workforces, have undoubtedly assigned dedicated employees
for some of
these activities, or even specialists. Start-ups must therefore
develop their opportunity
recognition strategy within their resource constraints. Assigning
responsibility for
opportunity recognition on at least a part-time basis may be a
first step toward this
end. For growth firms, the next stage would be opportunity
evaluation and results
measurement as predicted in the literature (Ardichvili et al.,
2003; Oviatt and
McDougall, 2005; Di Gregorio et al., 2008; Chandra et al.,
2012).
6 Conclusion
There are significant implications for research and management
resulting from the
exploration of opportunity recognition practices by international
high-tech start-up
and growth photonics firms. From a research point of view, this
paper makes an
important contribution to international entrepreneurship literature
by exploring a
fundamental concept of business development activities --
international opportunity
recognition – within the context of internationalised high tech
SMEs. We applied a
multiple case study methodology to deepen our understanding,
delving into the
practices of five start-up and five growing Canadian photonics
firms. HTSMEs
recognise opportunities by using both tie and non-tie based
methods, thereby
multiplying potential opportunities. Opportunity-related practices
do not differ
significantly between start-up and growing firms. However, growing
firms in general
are more active and most have a more reflective and at times a more
objective-
oriented approach. Analysis of data and information gathering
through their networks
and through fair-based methods is generally more systematic and
purposeful.
This paper provides entrepreneurs with some useful insights
regarding characteristics
of entrepreneurs of both start-up and growing high-tech firms, as
well as their ability
to combine tied and non-tied bases methods in the search for
international
opportunities.
At the start-up stage, when at least one of the founding team
members has previous
industry experience internationally, he/she is more likely to
understand information in
the environment and its value for potential business. Activeness
should be carefully
nourished, since personal contacts such as classmates, previous
colleagues, and
participants at industry events were mentioned by growth
respondents as sources of
privileged information and potential clients. Younger firms are
also encouraged to
more systematically consult public information and to use it
creatively, since it has
been shown that some growth firms’ managers have developed the
ability to
recognise opportunity by staying informed, not only about
scientific or industry
knowledge, but also through current events in the international and
business
environments.
Previous experience in the industry also provides an important
advantage in terms of
the business network. However, for spinoffs, the incumbent’s
network of contacts
may compensate for the absence of industry experience by acting as
a source of
opportunity transfer. Therefore contacts with and from the seminal
organization
(university, public laboratory, incubator or firm) must be
nourished. Localisation in a
cluster and a scientific park favour local networking which has
been shown to
contribute to firms’ internationalisation in a B2B context.
Respondents have
emphasized the importance of meeting people to generate leads and
to maintain
relationships, as well as to demonstrate their technology and to
learn first-hand about
potential customers’ needs.
The present study has different implications for opportunity
recognition of the two
categories of firms concerned. Managers of internationalised
start-up firms have to
first build their network abroad to be known. Non-tie based sources
of opportunities
such as fair-based methods and advertising-based methods, including
scientific
publications in academic journals, are crucial. After formal search
for potential
clients, they have to show boldness by making direct calls to
provoke meetings.
Foreign representatives may help, but courtesy visits are still in
order. Once a firm
has closed its first client, the firm may ask for direct referral
by the client either inside
its own multinational or to external organizations. The analysis
suggests that it is of
key importance to balance these two methods to fully benefit from
their network but
not constrain themselves by it.
At the growth stage, entrepreneurs have learned, gained in
experience, and developed
both social and business networks. Personal contacts with actual
clients are crucial to
maintain the relationship and to be informed of their needs. Growth
firms emphasize
live customer service 24/7 through an employee. Although they
generally use the
same methods as start-ups, our study offers some evidence that
growth firm are more
focused, plan non tie-based methods more strategically and are
therefore more
efficient at recognizing an opportunity event. For example, they
choose specific
events to attend, proactively obtain the list of event
participants, and explicitly target
potential clients during the event. They are able to qualify
opportunities. They
advertise through internet to their contact database to demonstrate
their credibility.
They use e-marketing more systematically. As experience increases,
search for
opportunities is formalised. Lessons for start-ups from these
findings are that they
must more formally plan their opportunity search and recognition
methods, as well as
build their resources and networks. This will permit them to
develop their opportunity
recognition skills.
This paper has limitations that call for future research. First,
expanded work in terms
of number of firms, diversity of industries, and country of origin
should be
undertaken. In our study, the homogeneity of the cluster
environment of all
respondent firms may have had an impact on our results. Second,
complementary
methodologies such as longitudinal studies of the same sample firms
from their
incubation to their own growth stage could bring new insights into
the evolution of
their business development capacity. Comparative studies between
high-tech
industries and then between high-tech and low-tech industries could
help researchers
to understand the potential of generalisation of the findings.
Future studies could also
address the next step of opportunity recognition by examining the
strategies that link
opportunities to development, through R&D and sales and
marketing strategies,
including the sales process in a B2B context. Finally, the impact
of different
opportunity recognition paths could be measured with respect to
successful
opportunity development and performance.
References
Alberti, F.G., Sciascia, S., Tripodi, C. and Visconti, F. (2011)
"The entrepreneurial
growth of firms located in clusters: a cross-case study",
International Journal of
Technology Management, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp.53-79.
Altshuler, L. and Tarnovskaya, V.V. (2010) "Branding capability of
technology born
globals", Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 18, No. 3,
pp.212–227.
Andersson, M., Solitander, A. and Ekman, P. (2012) Cluster Branding
and Marketing
– a Handbook on Cluster Brand Management, Tendensor,
Stockholm
Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R. and Ray, S. (2003) "A Theory of
Entrepreneurial
Opportunity Identification and Development", Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol.
18, No. 1, pp.105-123.
Arikan, A.T. (2009) "Interfirm Knowledge Exchanges and the
Knowledge Creation
Capability of Clusters", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 34, No.
4, pp.658-
676.
Autio, E., Sapienza, H.J. and Almeida, J.G. (2000) "Effects of age
at entry,
knowledge intensity, and imitability on international growth",
Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 43, No. 5, pp.909-924.
Boschma, R. and Fornahl, D. (2011) "Cluster Evolution and a Roadmap
for Future
Research", Regional Studies, Vol. 45, No. 10, pp.1295-1298.
Carayannis, E.G. and von Zedtwitz, M. (2005) "Architecting gloCal
(global-local),
real-virtual incubator networks (G-RVINs) as catalysts and
accelerators of
entrepreneurship in transitioning and developing economies: lessons
learned and
best practices from current development and business incubation
practices",
Technovation, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp.95-110.
Chandra, Y., Styles, C. and Wilkinson, I.F. (2012) "An
Opportunity-Based View of
Rapid Internationalization", Journal of International Marketing,
Vol. 20, No. 1,
pp.74-102.
Child, J., Rodrigues, S.B. and Frynas, J.G. (2009) "Psychic
Distance, its Impact and
Coping Modes", Management International Review, Vol. 49, No. 2,
pp.199-224.
Coviello, N.E. (2006) "The network dynamics of international new
ventures", Journal
of International Business Studies, Vol. 37, No. 5,
pp.713-731.
Coviello, N.E. (2015) "Re-thinking research on born globals",
Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp.17-26.
Coviello, N.E. and Jones, M.V. (2004) "Methodological issues in
international
entrepreneurship research", Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 19,
No. 4, pp.485-
508.
Di Gregorio, D., Musteen, M. and Thomas, D.E. (2008) "International
new ventures:
The cross-border nexus of individuals and opportunities", Journal
of World
Business, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp.186-196.
Drucker, P.F. (2015) Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Routledge
Classics, New
York.
environments", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 4,
pp.532-550.
Ellis, P.D. (2011) "Social ties and international entrepreneurship:
Opportunities and
constraints affecting firm internationalization", Journal of
International Business
Studies, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp.99-127.
Engel, J.S. and del-Palacio, I. (2009) "Global Networks of Clusters
of Innovation:
Accelerating the Innovation Process", Business Horizons, Vol. 52,
No. 5, pp.493-
503.
Evers, N. (2011) "Exploring market orientation in new export
ventures",
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Management, Vol. 13,
No. 3/4, pp.357-376.
Feeser, H.R. and Willard, G.E. (1990) "Founding strategy and
performance: A
comparison of high and low growth high tech firms", Strategic
Management
Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.87–98.
Felzensztein, C., Gimmon, E. and Aqueveque, C. (2012) "Clusters or
un-clustered
industries? Where inter-firm marketing cooperation matters",
Journal of Business
& Industrial Marketing, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp.392-402.
Fernhaber, S.A. and Li, D. (2010) "The Impact of
Interorganizational Imitation on
New Venture International Entry and Performance", Entrepreneurship
Theory and
Practice, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp.1-30.
Frietsch, R. and Grupp, H. (2006) "There’s a new man in town: the
paradigm shift in
optical technology", Technovation, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.13-29.
Fryges, H. (2009) "Internationalisation of technology-oriented
firms in Germany and
the UK", Small Business Economics, Vol. 33, No. 2,
pp.165-187.
Gnyawali, D.R. and Srivastava, M.K. (2013) "Complementary effects
of clusters and
networks on firm innovation: A conceptual model", Journal of
Engineering and
Technology Management, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp.1-20.
Harveston, P.D., Kedia, B.L., Davis, P.S. and Van Scotter, J.
(2001). Synoptic versus
incremental internationalization: An examination of born global and
gradual
globalizing firms. Internationalization Efforts: 629-639.
He, J. and Fallah, M.H. (2011) "The typology of technology clusters
and its evolution
- Evidence from the hi-tech industries", Technological Forecasting
and Social
Change, Vol. 78, No. 6, pp.945-952.
Hendry, C., Brown, J. and DeFillippi, R. (2000) "Regional
Clustering of High
Technology-based Firms: Opto-electronics in Three Countries",
Regional Studies,
Vol. 34, No. 2, pp.129-144.
Hohenthal, J., Johanson, J. and Johanson, M. (2003) "Market
Discovery and the
International Expansion of the Firm", International Business
Review, Vol. 12, No.
6, pp.659-672.
Ibeh, K. and Kasem, L. (2011) "The network perspective and the
internationalization
of small and medium sized software firms from Syria", Industrial
Marketing
Management, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp.358–367.
Jimenez-Zarco, A.I., Cerdan-Chiscano, M. and Torrent-Sellens, J.
(2013) "Challenges
and Opportunities in Science Parks' Management: design of a tool
based on the
analysis of resident companies", Revista Brasileira De Gestao De
Negocios, Vol.
15, No. 48, pp.362-389.
Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J.-E. (2003) "Business relationship
learning and
commitment in the internationalization process", Journal of
International
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.83-101.
Jones, M.V., Coviello, N. and Tang, Y.K. (2011) "International
Entrepreneurship
research (1989-2009): A domain ontology and thematic analysis",
Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 26, No. 6, pp.632-659.
Kaczmarek, S. and Ruigrok, W. (2013) "In at the Deep End of
Firm
Internationalization", Management International Review Vol. 53, No.
4, pp.513-
534.
Kenny, B. and Fahy, J. (2006) "Examining the link between
international business
networks and performance in international trade – a research
agenda",
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Management, Vol. 6,
No. 6, pp.490-507.
Knight, G.A. and Cavusgil, S.T. (2004) "Innovation, organizational
capabilities, and
the born-global firm", Journal of International Business Studies,
Vol. 35, No. 2,
pp.124-141.
Kolbe, R.H. and Burnett, M.S. (1991) "Content-Analysis Research: An
Examination
of Applications with Directives for Improving Research Reliability
and
Objectivity", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18, No. 2,
pp.243-250.
Kontinen, T. and Ojala, A. (2011) "International Opportunity
Recognition among
Small and Medium-Sized Family Firms", Journal of Small Business
Management,
Vol. 49, No. 3, pp.490-514.
Kuivalainen, O., Sundqvist, S., Puumalainen, K. and Cadogan, J.W.
(2004) "The
effect of environmental turbulence and leader characteristics on
international
performance: Are knowledge-based firms different?", Canadian
Journal of
Administrative Sciences, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.35-50.
Lamprinopoulou, C. and Tregear, A. (2011) "Inter-firm relations in
SME clusters and
the link to marketing performance", Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 26, No. 6, pp.421-429.
Lee, I.H., Hong, E. and Sun, L.X. (2013) "Regional knowledge
production and
entrepreneurial firm creation: Spatial Dynamic Analyses", Journal
of Business
Research, Vol. 66, No. 10, pp.2106-2115.
Lew, Y.K., Sinkovics, R.R. and Kuivalainen, O. (2013)
"Upstream
internationalization process: Roles of social capital in creating
exploratory
capability and market performance", International Business Review,
Vol. 22, No.
6, pp.1101-1120.
based firms. Technology, innovation and enterprise: the European
experience. D.
Jones-Evan. New York, St. Martin’s Press: 303-324.
Loane, S. and Bell, J. (2006) "Rapid internationalisation among
entrepreneurial firms
in Australia, Canada, Ireland and New Zealand: An extension to the
network
approach", International Marketing Review, Vol. 23, No. 5,
pp.467-485.
Lundequist, P. and Power, D. (2002) "Putting Porter into Practice?
Practices of
Regional Cluster Building: Evidence from Sweden", European Planning
Studies,
Vol. 10, No. 6, pp.685-704.
Mainela, T., Puhakka, V. and Servais, P. (2014) "The Concept of
International
Opportunity in International Entrepreneurship: A Review and a
Research Agenda",
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 16, No. 1,
pp.105-129.
Manning, S., Ricart, J.E., Rique, M.S.R. and Lewin, A.Y. (2010)
"From blind spots to
hotspots: How knowledge services clusters develop and attract
foreign
investment", Journal of International Management, Vol. 16, No. 4,
pp.369-382.
Manolova, T.S. and Manev, I. (2004). Internationalization and the
performance of the
small firm: A review of the empirical literature between 1996 and
2001. Emerging
Paradigms in International Entrepreneurship. M. V. Jones and P.
Dimitratos.
Cheltenham/Northampton, Edward Elgar: 37-63.
McDougall, P.P. and Oviatt, B.M. (1996) "New venture
internationalization, strategic
change, and performance: a follow-up study", Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol.
11, No. 1, pp.23-40.
McHardy, D., De Martino, R. and Zyglidopoulos, S.C. (2005)
"The
internationalization Journey of a high-tech cluster", International
Business Review,
Vol. 47, No. 5, pp.529-554.
McMullen, J.S. and Shepherd, D.A. (2006) "Entrepreneurial action
and the role of
uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur", Academy of
Management Review,
Vol. 31, No. 1, pp.132-152.
McNaughton, R.B. (2003) "The number of export markets that firm
serves: Process
models versus the born-global phenomenon", Journal of
International
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp.297-311.
Menzel, M.P. and Fornahl, D. (2010) "Cluster life cycles-dimensions
and rationales
of cluster evolution", Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 19,
No. 1, pp.205-
238.
Mort, G.S. and Weerawardena, J. (2006) "Networking capability and
international
entrepreneurship - How networks function in Australian born global
firms",
International Marketing Review, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp.549-572.
Nanda, R. and Rhodes-Kropfa, M. (2013) "Investment cycles and
startup innovation",
Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 110, No. 2, pp.403–418.
Nummela, N. (2004). Is the globe becoming small or is small
becoming global?
Globalization and internationalizing SMEs. Emerging Paradigms in
International
Entrepreneurship. M. V. Jones and P. Dimitratos.
Cheltenham/Northampton,
Edward Elgar: 128-151.
Review, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp.85-99.
Oviatt, B.M. and McDougall, P.P. (2005) "Defining international
entrepreneurship
and modeling the speed of internationalization", Entrepreneurship:
Theory and
Practice, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp.537-553.
Ozgen, E. and Baron, R.A. (2007) "Social Sources of Information in
Opportunity
Recognition: Effects of Mentors, Industry Networks, and
Professional Forums",
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.174-192.
Park, J.S. (2005) "Opportunity recognition and product innovation
in entrepreneurial
hi-tech start-ups: a new perspective and supporting case study",
Technovation,
Vol. 25, No. 7, pp.739-752.
Paul, D.L. and Wooster, R.B. (2008) "Strategic investments by US
firms in transition
economies", Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 39, No.
2, pp.249-266.
Pereira, L. and Plonski, G.A. (2009) "Shedding light on
technological development in
Brazil", Technovation, Vol. 29, No. 6-7, pp.451-464.
Perreault, W.D. and Leigh, L.E. (1989) "Reliability of nominal data
based on
qualitative judgments", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 26, No.
2, pp.135-
148.
Perren, L. and Ram, M. (2004) "Case-study Method in Small Business
and
Entrepreneurial Research: Mapping boundaries and perspectives ",
International
Small Business Journal, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp.83-101.
Prashantham, S. (2006) "Foreign network relationships and the
internationalisation of
small knowledge-intensive firms", International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and
Innovation Management, Vol. 6, No. 6, pp.542-553.
Prashantham, S. and Berry, M.M.J. (2004) "The small
knowledge-intensive firm: a
conceptual discussion of its characteristics and
internationalisation", International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Vol. 4, No.
2/3,
pp.150-158.
Preece, S.B., Miles, G. and Mark, B. (1998) "Explaining the
international intensity
and global diversity of early-stage technology-based firms",
Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.259-281.
Rialp, A., Rialp, J. and Knight, G.A. (2005) "The phenomenon of
early
internationalizing firms: what do we know after a decade
(1993-2003) of scientific
inquiry?", International Business Review, Vol. 14, No. 2,
pp.147-166.
Romanelli, E. and Khessina, O.M. (2005) "Regional Industrial
Identity: Cluster
Configurations and Economic Development", Organisation Science,
Vol. 16, No.
4, pp.344-358.
Ruokonen, M., Nummela, N., Puumalainen, K. and Saarenketo, S.
(2006) "Network
management – the key to the successful rapid internationalisation
of the small
software firm?", International Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Innovation
Management, Vol. 6, No. 6, pp.554-572.
Sa, C. and Lee, H. (2012) "Science, business, and innovation:
understanding networks
in technology-based incubators", R & D Management, Vol. 42, No.
3, pp.243-253.
Saxenian, A.L. (2006) The new argonauts: Regional advantage in a
global economy,
Harvard University Press, Boston.
Shane, S. (2000) "Prior Knowledge and the Discovery of
Entrepreneurial
Opportunities", Organization Science, Vol. 11, No. 4,
pp.448-469.
Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000) "The Promise of
Entrepreneurship as a Field
of Research", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26, No. 1,
pp.13-17.
Spence, M. (2003) "International Strategy Formation in Small
Canadian High
Technology Companies: A Case Study Approach", Journal of
International
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp.277-296.
Spence, M. and Crick, D. (2006) "A comparative investigation into
the
internationalisation of Canadian and UK high-tech SMEs",
International
Marketing Review, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp.524-548.
Spence, M. and Essoussi, L.H. (2010) "SME brand building and
management: an
exploratory study", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44, No.
7-8, pp.1037-
1054.
2nd, 2013, from http://spie.org/.
Stake, R.E. (1994). Case Studies. Handbook of Qualitative Research.
N. K. Denzin
and Y. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage: 236–247.
Varis, J., Kuivalainen, O. and Saarenketo, S. (2005) "Partner
selection for
international marketing and distribution in corporate new
ventures", Journal of
International Entrepreneurship, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.19-36.
Yin, R.K. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage
Publications,
Thousands Oaks, CA.
Yip, G.S., Gomez Biscarri, J. and Monti, J.A. (2000) "The Role of
the
Internationalization Process in the Performance of Newly
Internationalizing
Firms", Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 8, No. 3,
pp.10-35.
Zahra, S.A., Korri, J.S. and Yu, J.F. (2005) "Cognition and
international
entrepreneurship: Implications for research on international
opportunity
recognition and exploitation", International Business Review, Vol.
14, No. 2,
pp.129-146.
Zou, H. and Ghauri, P.N. (2010) "Internationalizing by learning:
the case of Chinese
high-tech new ventures", International Marketing Review, Vol. 27,
No. 2, pp.223-
Firm 1-5 ≤100k 100 5 3
S2 8 No No Firm 1-5 100k-249k 100 3 2
S3 4
Yes Research,
industry, international
S4 4 No International
S5 5
Yes Research,
G2 13
No Research,
G3 21 No No
G4 23 No Industry Firm 51-100 5M-9.9M 100 35 5
G5 14
Figure 3: Patterns observed
Concepts Start-ups Growth firms
stage
importance
alertness to actions
Sources of opportunities
market information